Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration CIMM NUMBER 072 1st SESSION 42nd PARLIAMENT EVIDENCE Tuesday, October 3, 2017 Chair Mr. Robert Oliphant

1 Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Tuesday, October 3, 2017 (0845) The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. It is my great pleasure to be here today for the 72nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We welcome our witnesses, some who are rejoining us from our last meeting and others who are new, to make opening statements. We will begin with Mr. MacDonald. Mr. Michael MacDonald (Director General, Operations Sector, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak to the committee once again today on this important topic. I'm joined by Paul MacKinnon, assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy, as well as André Baril, director of asylum policy. To address the recent influx of asylum seekers crossing into Canada from the United States outside of designated ports of entry, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has taken a number of actions. Most important, we are working in partnership with other departments as a member of the ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration as well as with agencies, other levels of government, and of course our external partners. This whole-of-government approach is working well, including through the government operations centre, and we will continue to work together on this important issue. We know that the situation is in part a result of misinformation on various social media and other channels suggesting that those in the United States will receive preferential treatment if they come to Canada. This is, of course, incorrect. All claimants are treated according to existing laws. The current process for asylum claimants is well established and effective. Asylum claims are governed in part by international treaties to which Canada, of course, is a signatory. As such, we have a legal responsibility to assess all asylum claims and anyone claiming asylum in Canada has the right to due process. That being said, strict processes are in place for all those who seek protection, regardless of how they arrive in Canada. Upon their entry into Canada, all asylum claimants crossing legally and illegally first undergo a rigorous screening and background screening to ensure that they have not committed serious crimes and do not pose health or safety risks to Canadians. A Canada Border Services Agency officer will then verify their identities using both biographic and biometric information. An interview is then conducted by a CBSA or IRCC official to determine an individual's eligibility for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Factors determining eligibility to claim asylum include whether the claimant has made a previous claim in Canada or if they have already received protection in another country. If someone is determined eligible, an asylum claim is then referred to the IRB for an independent assessment of the individual's claim based on the risks they face in their home country. With the influx of asylum seekers through the summer in Saint- Bernard-de-Lacolle, wait times for initial eligibility interviews had increased to several months. However, Mr. Chair, I am happy to report today that due to our increased efforts over the months of August and September, the wait time for such interviews is now reduced to a number of days or weeks depending on the circumstances. Once an asylum claim is deemed eligible and referred to the IRB, the federal government covers the cost of eligible health services under the interim federal health program. Due to these exceptional circumstances, IFH certificates are now being issued to individuals after they have undergone security and background screening and have been scheduled for their initial eligibility interview. After a claim is made, individuals may also apply for social assistance, which is the responsibility of provinces and territories. To help ease pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments, IRCC has been fast-tracking work permit applications for all asylum claimants across Canada with a 30-day service standard.

2 CIMM-72 October 3, 2017 In recent weeks, the government has also taken a number of steps to inform people in Canada and the United States of the facts regarding the asylum process here in Canada and to dispel false information. We are spreading the word that temporary protected status in the United States does not automatically entitle anyone to any status in our country. Some asylum claimants have believed this. (0850) We have also launched an extensive outreach campaign with our partners, and are working with Canadian consulates to bring this message directly to diaspora communities in the U.S. who might be thinking about making the journey to Canada. Mr. Chair, we feel it's important to continue to emphasize that while Canada supports managed migration and is a welcoming society, entering Canada irregularly can be dangerous for personal safety, and does not guarantee that you can then stay in Canada. The same rigorous assessment applies regardless of how a person enters Canada and where they claim asylum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Benzvy Miller, go ahead. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller (Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good morning. My name is Shereen Benzvy Miller. As of early May, I am the deputy chairperson of the refugee protection division at the Immigration and Refugee Board, or the IRB. I'm accompanied by Greg Kipling, director general of policy, planning, and corporate affairs at the IRB. Thank you for inviting us this morning to discuss this summer's influx of refugee claimants in Quebec. Several agencies are involved in dealing with this, so where does the IRB fit in? What does this sudden influx mean for the IRB? The IRB is Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal. It only becomes involved in the process, as my colleague Mr. MacDonald suggested, once we get a referral from the IRCC or from the CBSA. They are at the front lines. Before specifically discussing the influx of refugee claimants in Quebec and the response of the Refugee Protection Division, I would like to give you an overview of our mandate and the environment in which we operate. Our mandate guides all the decisions we make in the processing of refugee claims and rulings on those issues, including with respect to the recent increase of refugee claimants in Quebec. Our work essentially consists in determining whether a person has standing to be a refugee or whether they are a person in need of protection under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 1985 Singh decision, ruled that legal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to everyone in other words, every person in Canada, including refugee claimants. In addition, the court stated that refugee claimants have the right to a refugee hearing when a serious issue of credibility is raised. That is why the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada was created in 1989. Mr. Justice La Forest, in a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada decision, stated that the refugee status determination is probably one of the most difficult judicial or quasi-judicial events existing in Canada. The adjudication of refugee claims is a complex matter for several reasons. One, refugee protection division members are making profound decisions of life or death, often with incomplete or limited evidence. Two, many of the claimants who appear before the board are vulnerable and suffer from mental health issues, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, as a result of the trauma suffered in their homeland. So far in 2017, 93% of claimants required the assistance of an interpreter. We have the capacity to provide this service in 240 languages and dialects. Three, in addition, the RPD members must be up to date on the developments of the law and must be experts on the country conditions of 126 countries so far in 2017, most of which are constantly in flux. Last, the courts have consistently held that the RPD must ensure a high level of procedural fairness, due in part to the importance of the decision being made. (0855) It is in that context that the Refugee Protection Division developed its approach to respond to the influx of refugee claimants crossing the Quebec border. The fact that many of those refugee claimants are living in temporary tents and do not have work permits has created a number of problems, both for the refugee claimants and for the Refugee Protection Division's processing of refugee claims. First, since a large number of those refugee claimants were in a very precarious situation in Canada, fairness required that the Refugee Protection Division use all means available to process the refugee claims quickly. That means we have to prioritize the processing of as many cases as possible, to the extent that our resources permit, while meeting our overall mandate. Therefore, on August 11, we immediately created a response team, which will be active from September until the end of November. We have appointed 17 of our members to that team and immediately took measures to hire new members so as not to impede our capacity to deal with the number of cases we normally receive on an ongoing basis.

October 3, 2017 CIMM-72 3 The response team has both operational and adjudicative thrusts. I'd like to underline that this response has not diminished in any way IRB's ongoing commitment to one of the key objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is the security of Canadian society. For example, the IRB has a publicly accessible policy that requires that the RPD not accept a refugee claim until CBSA has had a reasonable opportunity to complete its security screening. This policy remains in place for all claims, including those heard through the response team. There are other processes related to security matters that I would be happy to discuss during the question period, if they are of interest. Since July 1, more than 8,000 claims were referred to the RPD. Before this, we were projecting an intake of 40,000 cases for this fiscal year. The strain on the organization to handle this many people's hearings is enormous, as our capacity to hear cases this fiscal year, following a plan of action for efficiency and internal reallocation of funds, is roughly 2,000 per month, or 24,000 per year. Naturally, claimants whose hearings are not brought before a decision-maker of the response team in the next two months will wait to be scheduled like other claimants. Wait times before the Lacolle arrivals were already at approximately 16 months per person. Intake in the eastern region, in the month of September alone, was equal to the eastern region's intake for all of 2016. To date, the response team has processed nearly 300 claims, and it expects to process up to 1,500 of them during its three-month term. Those decisions represent only a small portion of refugee claims compared to the thousands of decisions rendered every year, and they account for only a fraction of refugee claims that have been submitted to us since July. In general, we will ensure to take advantage of all the opportunities and leverage technology, as well as our employees' expertise, to deal with the current situation. Greg and I look forward to your questions. Thank you for having us. The Chair: Thank you very much, not only for this but for your ongoing work to help Canadians. Mr. Anandasangaree. (0900) Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough Rouge Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, panel, for joining us. My first set of questions will relate to the initial screening. Mr. MacDonald, can you advise us on the number of people who are detained as part of the screening process? Mr. Michael MacDonald: Only the CBSA, and in fact the RCMP at the initial contact, would have the number of individuals who are detained and whether or not they move forward in the process. They will make the determination around their admissibility or inadmissibility into Canada. That said, as Mr. Cloutier mentioned last week, the number of individuals being detained is very, very low. Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: Can you advise us, maybe just for the record, on whether any children have been detained, either as part of it being in the best interest of the child or because there are no alternatives? Has anyone under the age of 18 been detained as part of that process? Mr. Michael MacDonald: I am not aware of the number of children who have or have not been detained. Only the CBSA would have those stats. Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: Okay. Thank you, Mr. MacDonald. You mentioned that with respect to waiting times, 16 months is the current timeline for processing. We do have a number of cases that are in backlog, particularly the legacy cases. I understand that earlier this year, IRB outlined a process by which there would be processing of those claims dating back to 2012 and even before that. Can you advise us on whether these claims will affect the program you have developed for the legacy files? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: For those who are not familiar with what we refer to as legacy cases, those are cases that are backlogged from before the time of the reform of the legislation, before 2012. There were originally close to 40,000 of those cases, but a little over 5,000 remain to be adjudicated. We refer to that as our legacy case backlog. Those are being handled by a special team that was established in May and that started hearing cases just last month. They are expected to do the work to cover those 5,000 cases. They expect to be completed within two years. None of the activities that we are taking on now will affect that, because that is a stand-alone task force and initiative. Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: Thank you. With respect to the current 16-month timeline, that would pose a bit of a challenge with respect to the current legislation, would it not, in terms of the processing? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: You mean, in terms of legislation, are we still within the legislation? Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: Yes. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Yes, we are. We are within the legislation because the legislation does have timelines 30 days, 45 days, and 60 days but it also allows for a fourth category of exception, which is for operational need. We currently have over 40,000 cases in backlog, and essentially, the average processing times relate to the way in which we can schedule cases, hear them, and factor in all of the various streams that we need to bring to the fore. Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: With the current 16-month timeline, do you expect that number to remain the same or do you expect it to increase because of the new numbers we received over the summer?

4 CIMM-72 October 3, 2017 Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: I think it's safe to say it will increase. It's a mathematical calculation: the number of cases, the number of members and hearing rooms available to hear those cases, and the length of time it takes. We have put efficiencies in place to ensure that we are effective in doing triage of cases. When cases only have, for instance, one issue to adjudicate, then that can be done in a shorter amount of hearing time, let's say two hours or less, as opposed to three hours or more. We are trying to be as effective as we can in scheduling the timing, but the math is clear. Unless you put more resources into this problem, it takes longer times to schedule, so there will be longer wait times. Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: What types of resources are we talking about? Are they additional members, additional staff, an overall dollar issue, and if so, what is the expectation? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: It is a dollar issue, and it is a combination, obviously, of members, hearing rooms, and staff. You need to support hearings. There's a lot of process around scheduling and other things to support the member's decision. We're in the process now of trying to figure out what the gap is. Part of the problem is that all of our scenario-building is based on projections, and the projections, obviously, did not originally anticipate the kind of influx we had this summer. We've already had 8,000 referrals since July 1, which was wholly unanticipated. (0905) Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: Mr. MacDonald, just in closing, with respect to the numbers you're dealing with, are there requirements for additional resources on the IRCC side? Mr. Michael MacDonald: No, at this stage we are able to manage with all the resources we have within the department. As I mentioned last week, we are moving individuals around, reassigning people, and taking very much the approach that we have in the overseas context where we send people out on temporary duty for six-week assignments from around our various processing networks. We're divided into networks. We're therefore able to move people around. We have, in fact, sent temporary duty people to Montreal to work at both the Complexe Guy-Favreau as well as Peel Street. Mr. Gary Anandasangaree: I have a very quick question on that. Does that reassignment affect any other operations with respect to processing times? If so, what kind of effect does it have on specific programs? Mr. Michael MacDonald: There's always an impact when you move resources around. However, because we have multiple processing networks, we're able to disperse, and, in effect, diffuse any of the impacts. I've pulled some of the processing numbers and in fact our processing numbers are maintaining steady for different lines of business. What's also advantageous for us is the fact that our domestic network in Canada, which is handling the asylum issues and handles only asylum issues, has only a few lines of business that it deals with, whereas our overseas network, for example, deals with the bulk of visitors, workers, and so on. Those lines remain unaffected. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacDonald. Ms. Rempel. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to start with a context question. Since January 2017, how many asylum claims have been made by people entering into Canada at unofficial points of entry? Mr. Michael MacDonald: Thus far we have around 13,000 what you would call irregular arrivals at ports of entry. Hon. Michelle Rempel: In total, there are 13,000 asylum claims from January 1 to today that were made by people entering at illegal or unofficial points of entry. Mr. Michael MacDonald: It's roughly around 13,000, grand total. Hon. Michelle Rempel: We know that over 32,000 people have entered Canada, so there is a bit of a difference there. What has happened to those people? Mr. Michael MacDonald: Essentially, there are three different ways people come into Canada that add up to the grand total. If you take the grand total, around 34,000 right now it changes every day, as you know about 14,000 individuals have come through regular ports of entry, as well as airports, marine ports, and so on. We'll call that regular port of entry. Then you have the in-between port of entry arrivals, which is the 13,000 Hon. Michelle Rempel: I understand how the different asylum claims work. I'm just wondering how... You said that we have about 13,000 people who have come in through illegal points of entry and made asylum claims. What is the total number of people who have just come in through illegal points of entry and been intercepted by the RCMP this year? Mr. Michael MacDonald: We would know only the individuals who come through and make an asylum claim, the 13,000. There will be a number of individuals who come through and are intercepted by local law enforcement or the RCMP and who never end up making an asylum claim. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Do you know how many people are in that category? Mr. Michael MacDonald: Go ahead. Mr. Paul MacKinnon (Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I can perhaps add to that. Just about 1,600 have actually been sent back to the U.S. through the STCA, the safe third country agreement. I am not exactly sure if all those 1,600 have come in between ports of entry. They would have come through at the land border, because the safe third applies. Hon. Michelle Rempel: What I am looking for is the total number of people who have entered Canada through an illegal point of entry this year, that we know of, as compared with those who have made asylum claims. Mr. Michael MacDonald: They are almost identical. Around 14,000 individuals have gone through regular ports of entry Hon. Michelle Rempel: How many deportation orders have been issued?

October 3, 2017 CIMM-72 5 Mr. Michael MacDonald: IRCC would not know the number of deportation orders. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Miller, a comment was made that your projections for processing have changed. A memorandum drafted by your department this past spring, which was obtained by the press, stated that by the end of 2021, the new system inventory would grow to approximately 192,700 claims, equivalent to 133 months' worth of output from the board, or a wait time of approximately 11 years. You said that your projections have changed over the summer, given the Lacolle crossings by how much and why? (0910) Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: First of all, that 11 years was actually not put out by our department. That's not a calculus based on our numbers. It was based on IRCC departmental numbers. I am not sure how that 11 years was calculated, but it is a question of calculus, if you look at increases of... I think that one assumed a certain fixed rate of increase, and they just did the mathematical calculation with the number of members that we have. What I can say is that our calculus is based on our actual numbers, on the number of finalizations we can do. With our normal funding, we can normally do about 20,000 claims per year. We have some additional funding as a result of the cancellation of visas for Mexico, which allows us to increase that to about 24,000 finalizations per year. The math is not complex. It's really a question of factoring in what your expectation is. We had been expecting 40,000 claims this year, but we are already expecting more than that due to the 8,000 we got in the last month and a half. Hon. Michelle Rempel: How many are you expecting? What's your projection right now? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: We don't actually have a fixed projection. It's just more than 40,000. We just got 8,000, so, I don't know, 48,000 maybe. Hon. Michelle Rempel: If people were not able to make asylum claims after entering the country through an illegal point of entry at the U.S.-Canada land border so, if the safe third country agreement was applied to people crossing through regular, legal means would that have an impact on your projections? If so, by how much and why? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: That's actually something we have never contemplated. We make all of our projections based on the law as it is. We are a tribunal, so we make no policy assumptions. We just apply the law as it is, and that's how we make all of our projections. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Sure. We have 13,000 cases of people who have entered Canada illegally this year. The argument could be made that if that weren't an avenue that could be used by these people, your backlog would decrease. Is that correct? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: It depends. There may be other factors that come into play. I can't speak to fictitious scenarios. Hon. Michelle Rempel: How many vacancies currently exist within the IRB that must be filled by an order in council appointment? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: The order in council appointments are for our appellate members, so they don't really impact our firstlevel response, which is essentially the decisions that are made about whether somebody is a refugee or not. Hon. Michelle Rempel: How many are vacant right now? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Right now our vacancy I think is 23. Do we have 23 vacancies right now? Mr. Greg Kipling (Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): It's more than 23 vacancies. Hon. Michelle Rempel: In which category? Mr. Greg Kipling: That is for the RAD specifically. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Can you provide all of the vacancies, by appointment, to the committee? That's just because I'm running out of time. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: We could, absolutely. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Since January 2017, of the asylum claims made by people entering into Canada at non-official points of entry, how many have been completely processed by the IRB? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Your question is on how many the response team has dealt with to date. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Yes, how many have been completely processed? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: We have about 300 finalizations. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Okay, out of 13,000, there are 300 Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: We expect to do 1,500 through the response team by the end of November. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Of those 300, how many have been granted protected status? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: The acceptance rate is in the mid-tohigh 50% range. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Of the people who have been rejected, how many have been deported? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: I wouldn't have that information. Our responsibility is only for the decision and whether somebody meets the convention status. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Does IRCC have that? Mr. Paul MacKinnon: That would be CBSA, but we could follow up on that. Hon. Michelle Rempel: Thank you. The Chair: You have three seconds. Hon. Michelle Rempel: I guess I will finish. Thank you. The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Kwan.

6 CIMM-72 October 3, 2017 Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our officials for their presentations. My first question is for the IRB. The last time that IRB came before us, there were huge issues of resources, or the lack of resources, shall we say, to the point where the IRB was seeing 1,000 cases per month added to the backlog. Since that time, can you advise how much has been provided to the IRB to deal with the current situation? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Can you just clarify for me, since what time? What is the date we're talking about? I actually don't know a time when we were adding 8,000 per month (0915) Ms. Jenny Kwan: It was 1,000 per month. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Oh, that was 1,000. Now we're at about 1,400 per month. I'm not sure what date you're asking me about regarding new funding Ms. Jenny Kwan: That would be since the last time the IRB was before this committee, which would have been less than a year ago. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: There has been no new funding from a year ago. Ms. Jenny Kwan: There is no new funding, so in terms of the processing, you are now adding 1,600 per month Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: It's 1,400. Ms. Jenny Kwan: Sorry, it's 1,400 per month in the backlog, and no new funding has been provided. In terms of internal efficiencies that was the operative word from the minister, that this all can be handled with internal efficiencies can you tell us if you can handle this situation with internal efficiencies? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Internal efficiencies will actually help somewhat. We are looking, as I said, at different triage methods for the way we can schedule better and more effectively. We are looking at digital tools for supporting our members. We are looking at various efficiencies. We don't know how much that will add. There will still be a gap between what we can process and the number of cases that are put before us. Ms. Jenny Kwan: What do you think that gap will be? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: I really can't project, but it is a significant gap. We are, as I mentioned earlier, focusing on what kinds of resources we would need in order to close that gap, with various scenarios. Ms. Jenny Kwan: Has the IRB communicated this to the minister, about the gap and the need for additional resources? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: We are in frequent communication with our partners in the department, and yes, we're all in this together. Ms. Jenny Kwan: To date there have been no additional resources provided to the IRB, even though the minister knows there are an additional 13,000 cases being added per month in the backlog. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Would you like to take that? Mr. Paul MacKinnon: I might just add just a reference, and I'm sure you're aware of this, Mr. Chair and members. There is an independent review of the IRB going on right now. Our minister was asked to do that review, so that comes in Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Paul MacKinnon: and is very much a key part of this process. Ms. Jenny Kwan: Thank you for that. I'm aware of that, but we have come from a place where an additional 1,000 cases are still being added to the backlog, and now it has moved to 13,000. I get it that there is a review, but there needs to be action. That's what we want to see. If there is no action with respect to that, we are jeopardizing the integrity of our system. That is what I'm mostly worried about. That is not good for Canada. It's not good for anybody. The minister, when he was at this table he comes very rarely that one time, I think he did acknowledge that additional resources needed to be available for the IRB, but we have not seen any. With that, I want to turn to IRCC. With the existing resources that were reallocated, the 120 staff, within the IRCC to deal with the situation, can you provide the exact breakdown of how many staff were reallocated and from where? Mr. Michael MacDonald: Thank you, Chair. I can, in fact. At our Complexe Guy-Favreau that's our mobile temporary processing facility we have a total of 87 staff, and 49 of those are administrative people, 33 are decision-makers, and there are five supervisors. Clearly, we have extended hours there. When we renovated our existing second floor office on Peel Street Ms. Jenny Kwan: I'm sorry, maybe I miscommunicated my question. What I'm asking about is the staff who were taken from existing departments. Where did they come from? What's the breakdown of that? Mr. Michael MacDonald: We did not take staff from any other departments outside IRCC. Ms. Jenny Kwan: No, within IRCC, different departments, they came from what streams? Last time when IRCC was before this committee it was mentioned that citizenship, for example, and other immigration streams... Can you break down for me exactly where and how many?

October 3, 2017 CIMM-72 7 Mr. Michael MacDonald: I can't break that down exactly, though I will say this. We took staff largely from our Montreal, Quebec, operations to surge up Guy-Favreau and Peel Street. But we also took certain decision-makers who had a lot of experience from our western and Ontario offices. Ms. Jenny Kwan: Can you provide for the committee that breakdown please, where the staff came from within IRCC, and how many? (0920) Mr. Michael MacDonald: Yes, we can. Ms. Jenny Kwan: Thank you. Can you tell me at this moment if any of the staff came from the processing of live-in caregivers? Mr. Michael MacDonald: No, that is done in a completely different processing network. Ms. Jenny Kwan: All right. Thank you. Back to the IRB, with respect to the legacy cases we're now at 5,000. Because that, too, was done through internal efficiencies, can you tell us what the implication has been as a result of the reallocation of resources within the IRB to deal with this legacy task force? The Chair: You have 26 seconds. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is actually 5,300 cases. Sorry, I think I said over 5,000. But the reallocation was made. As I mentioned earlier, it turns out there are 26 vacancies. Essentially what we reallocated was the funding for salary dollars that would have been allocated had those positions all been filled, so it didn't actually impact our operations. The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Tabbara. Mr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South Hespeler, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today. I want to talk about the work permits. You were here before to testify, Mr. MacDonald, and you discussed work permit applications as one of the measures that the government is taking to respond to the influx of asylum seekers in Quebec. I just want to read out something to you. The Canadian workers to retiree ratio today is 4:1, and by 2035 it will be 2:1. Can you say that there's a correlation, knowing that we have an aging population, with our admitting a lot of work permits, because this is great for our economy and we need this to fuel our economy? We know the numbers of our aging population and we want to fill those gaps. Mr. Michael MacDonald: I suspect there will be in a downstream effort if one were to draw that comparison. However, the most important point of the asylum seekers' experience at this stage, their journey towards possibly being accepted and then into settlement, is to get them as established as quickly as possible to help their settlement into Canadian society. That is the real goal of the work permit for today, in the present. Mr. Marwan Tabbara: The recent surge in claims at the border and entry points from the United States has been a concern within the media and within the Canadian public. Can you tell us how you are working with the United States' officials to ensure the border and the orderly processing of asylum seekers? Mr. Michael MacDonald: I think I mentioned this last week and I'll just recap overall how we work with our American colleagues and how we are working with our American colleagues. We obviously enjoy a long-standing relationship with the Americans not just on immigration but on other parts of the immigration system, be it law enforcement, citizenship, even in the settlement world, and through non-government organizations. We have strong ties. We obviously have information-sharing agreements with the United States. We check biographic and biometric information with the United States. We also have strong ties in terms of visa regimes. We have strong ties overseas because we are positioned similarly around the world, so our officers exchange information. These are the ways that we work with the Americans and these are the ways that we are already continuing to work with them in terms of the asylum seekers. The very fact that we share and manage a border together makes that partnership continue. Mr. Marwan Tabbara: Can you give us current numbers? There have been about 50 people crossing daily, down from hundreds during the summer. There were almost 200 interviews scheduled daily, and that's up from just 30. Can you tell us the additional resources that the departments have been using to process these numbers faster and to be more efficient? Mr. Michael MacDonald: Certainly. We've been using only IRCC resources. I believe we have brought some people back out of retirement, people who would like to work on a casual basis, but at the end of the day we have... I'll mention quickly that we have reassigned 87 officers of various nature to Complexe Guy-Favreau and 58 officers to our Peel Street location. We also had 21 individuals working in Cornwall at our mobile processing centre, which was open for three weeks to deal with the individuals there. What's unique is that we're also using our existing offices across the country 63 individuals in fact to work 24-7 in what we call the back office. They get applications ready and into our electronic processing system the day before, essentially, so that when an asylum seeker is ready to be interviewed, they give us their documents and we can interview them, in fact, the next day or two days afterwards. That's how we've been able to work through the large number of decisions we've made around the eligibility portion of this. (0925) Mr. Marwan Tabbara: You'd probably conclude, then, by saying that the situation at the borders since the influx in the summer has been handled very well and at a rapid pace. Is that correct? Mr. Michael MacDonald: I would say so based on the fact that when you look at just the Lacolle movement, we have already processed through to eligibility 77% of all of the individuals who have passed through that Quebec corridor.

8 CIMM-72 October 3, 2017 Of course nationally the volume of processing and our speed has not changed. When we have first contact with an asylum seeker at IRCC, we process them within one to two days, basically, in the vast majority of cases, if not in almost every case. I think that alone is testament to the machinery that we set up to handle the influx this summer. Mr. Marwan Tabbara: In 2016 Canada admitted the highest number of refugees 46,700 refugees from Syria, Eritrea, Iraq, Congo, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and they were resettled here in Canada. In 1980 Canada accepted just over 40,000 people in a single year during the resettlement of Indochinese refugees. This year more than 32,000 asylum seekers have arrived in Canada so far. The circumstances surrounding each of these surges are unique, but they show that Canada is equipped to process asylum seekers, because we have done it in the past, in the examples I've provided. Can you share some of the best practices that officials have adopted from these past experiences? Mr. Michael MacDonald: The response could be quite long, so I'll pick some of the most unique best practices that we've learned over the years. It starts really with what we learned with our operation for Syrian refugees; that is, that our department now has a better-tuned ability to set up, very quickly, mobile processing centres. We have biometric kits, as we call them, that take biometrics and they are mobile. We can move those around. We have positioned in various places our secure forms, shredders, and secure printers. We have very much fashioned ourselves in the last few years to be mobile. The other best practice is that because our global case management processing system is all electronic now, we're literally able to work around the globe, be it in Canada or elsewhere, 24-7. Because of the time zone changes and the different cultures we work in, work days are different. That's what we call the back office. We've refined our back-office processes, making them much better. The other best practice we've learned is that when you start to look at multiple forms and intake mechanisms, you need to thin down and not ask the same questions at different points of the continuum, which can be long at times. The more you do so, the more quickly people can move through. Also, to be frank, we've invested in individuals. We've invested in people by sending them out on temporary duty. We take headquarters people and send them out to the field to do processing for up to six weeks at a time. We offer employees what are called single assignments to go oversees to get direct experience. We also do this in our domestic context. We are trying, then, to invest in our people to make them better and faster decision-makers. There is also one The Chair: I need to have you wrap up. Mr. Michael MacDonald: Sure. There's also one other best practice that we've learned and it's called the hackathon. That's when you allow people, generally younger than me, who actually know computer systems, to sit down and actually it's very exciting devise ways to electronically work smarter and faster. We encourage that in the department and then we make it part of our processes: a very valuable lesson learned. The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Saroya, I'm going to give you a bit of extra time, because the Liberals had a little bit extra. You will have about seven and a half minutes. Mr. Bob Saroya (Markham Unionville, CPC): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses coming forward. (0930) The Chair: Sorry, it's a five-minute round, so you will have six minutes. Mr. Bob Saroya: How many asylum seekers entered in September from the non-official entry places? Do you know the number? Mr. Michael MacDonald: The number I have up to September 17 was just over 2,000. Mr. Bob Saroya: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Michael MacDonald: That is across Canada. Sorry. Mr. Bob Saroya: Across Canada, yes. According to the Toronto Star, the wait time for an asylum claim in Canada could go to 11 years and it could cost about $3 billion. Does that make sense? The Toronto Star is saying the wait time is a staggering 11 years and it will cost about $2.97 billion. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: As I previously stated, I actually don't know how that projection was arrived at. What I can say is that the way in which we project our future backlog or workload issues is around scenario building. We essentially project the number of claims and we divide it by, say, 24,000 claims that we can finalize per year, and that will give you the wait time for how long it will take Mr. Bob Saroya: Is the number this big, about $3 billion or so? It's a huge number. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: I have no idea where that figure comes from in terms of dollars. Do you know where that came from, because it must have been based on calculus that was done somewhere other than the IRB? Mr. André Baril (Director, Asylum Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Maybe I can answer that question. It's calculus, indeed, in terms of processing capacity versus intake and how long the backlog will stay in the state of not being processed. When we look at cost, there's a federal processing cost but there are also provincial services costs provinces provide social assistance, education, and housing and we at the federal level provide the interim federal health program. The longer an asylum claimant stays in the system, the longer the federal and provincial costs last.

October 3, 2017 CIMM-72 9 Mr. Bob Saroya: Are you satisfied with the government's plan to whittle down the current backlog? What is it doing? What else can we do to bring the backlog down? Mr. Michael MacDonald: The IRB backlog or...? Mr. Bob Saroya: Yes. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: For the IRB backlog, we're doing several things. One is that we have a plan of action in place, which is intended to really maximize our ability to deal with the backlog in the most efficient way possible, including and Mike referred to advances in technology the way in which we could leverage technology to support our members. At the end of the day, though, there will remain a wait time, because it is a mathematical calculation. Mr. Michael MacDonald: In terms of the backlog that IRCC has, we only have one backlog and that is the number of decisions to be made on eligibility in Lacolle. There is no backlog. It doesn't exist for the rest of Canada, and we are very happy with the way we're working through that, the thousands of decisions we've made since August 1. Mr. Bob Saroya: This year is going to be the highest number since 2000. We were expecting about 40,000 refugees coming through. How much will the cost climb up per claimant, because if the volume is so big, how much more? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: The fact is that we have a finite number of claims we can handle a year. We can handle about 24,000 a year. The point is that there's only added cost if you add more resources to be able to handle more claims than that. The cost for an RPD claim is about $2,600 per claim, and that's without an appeal. When you add more claims, you either add more time or you add more money. As I said, it's a very mathematical calculus. The claims need to be dealt with. They need hearings. They need to have the attention of a member, so you either need more members or you need more time. Mr. Bob Saroya: Thank you. What are the demographics of the asylum seekers coming to Canada? Are there children, schoolkids? What is the timeline of these children to be able to access education, if at all? How many people are coming? How many are kids, schoolchildren, men, and women? (0935) Mr. Michael MacDonald: Thank you, Chair. Again, generally speaking, you see roughly around 60% of the demographic overall being males. You see a number of children, usually around 20% or so. It depends on nationality and where they're coming from. We see, obviously, a lot of family units. In terms of the males, they're anywhere from around 20 to 40 years of age. Mr. Bob Saroya: I'll leave it there. Thank you. The Chair: Mr. Dubourg. Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to say hello to all the witnesses who are here. I thank them for coming to discuss this issue. Mr. MacDonald, my first question is for you and it follows up on the one that was just put to you. You said that many of the people who arrived this summer were children, for a family reunification. I know that there were also pregnant women. The health program for refugee claimants has been restored. Can you tell us what challenges you have faced in terms of those refugee claimants' health? Mr. Michael MacDonald: I will answer in English to be more specific. This is an important issue. In fact, overall the health of the asylum claimants very much drove how we responded operationally. We wanted to ensure that Canada's border, in being well managed and with such high numbers, did not have any health concerns. The reality is we're dealing with people and people's lives. We had pregnant women showing up. We had actual births at the port of entry during this period of time in the high volumes. We had children who needed medical attention, and so on. Not unlike other refugee flows, grosso modo the health of the overall Lacolle movement was relatively good, since the majority of the people had been in the United States for a while. Their health was actually quite good overall. That said, we were prepared for any health-type issues, as we are in the IRCC offices, because we have contact with people daily and things happen in life. Again, importantly, the minister made a decision I believe it was August 24 to issue the interim federal health certificate before eligibility decision for the Lacolle individuals, to ensure that anyone who had a health need could in fact reach and get that interim federal health coverage right away. Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg: Still on the subject of borders, we heard in the media that people were calling for an official port of entry for example, at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. Given the length of the border, can you tell us what dangers refugee claimants would face if the decision was made to set up official ports of entry all along the border? Would that be in line with our Canadian values? Mr. Paul MacKinnon: I'd like to say a few words. Mr. Cloutier spoke about this at our meeting last week. Certainly there are lots of conversations going on about different responses that are possible. I think what you're referring to is the concept of pop-up, where suddenly you make a new port of entry so that the STCA could apply. It's fair to say, there are different views on that. Certainly, by applying the STCA, then potentially if folks did not meet an exception, you could send them back, thereby decreasing pressure on the system.

10 CIMM-72 October 3, 2017 If the RCMP were here talking about this, they would have some concerns about displacement, that you just push people further down the border, and how do you manage that? There are pros and cons to that concept, and it's certainly one that's being discussed. I will leave it there. The Chair: You have only one minute left. (0940) Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg: Mr. MacKinnon, you said earlier that the IRB was under review. Could you tell us what the purpose of that review is and when it began? Mr. Paul MacKinnon: Absolutely. In the context of the budget last year, our minister was asked to conduct an independent review. The minister has engaged with Mr. Neil Yeates, who perhaps some of you met. He was the former deputy minister of our department. In what the review is looking at, really three things are within the scope. There's how the efficiency of the asylum system can be improved, so an interest of efficiencies. Then there's what elements of the IRB's current structure could change in order to optimize productivity and efficiency, and whether that review should look at some type of different governance and accountability framework. Basically, it's looking at efficiencies within the IRB but also within that broader asylum system, so I think it is a really important part of what we're discussing. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon. Mr. Maguire, you have almost six minutes. Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon Souris, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the panel this morning as well. I have just a couple of quick questions in regard to forms. Are all requirements and steps currently laid out for the proceeding of refugees' claims being completely followed? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: In the referral process or...? Mr. Larry Maguire: Yes, just in the basic form that you fill out once you cross the border. Are they being completely followed? Mr. Michael MacDonald: Yes, they are. In fact filling out the necessary forms is something that we've been reaching out to the Canadian Bar Association on, to send to all their members, which they have, as well as all the immigration consultants and the national organizations that send out to that membership. We're also informing, actually, the asylum seekers themselves, in particular in Lacolle, which forms they need to fill out and then encouraging them to come into our dedicated service desk that I talked about last week to help them fill out forms. Mr. Larry Maguire: So each person, each refugee, who comes across has to fill that form out. Mr. Michael MacDonald: Yes. The forms are required, sir. Mr. Larry Maguire: It's my understanding that these basis of claim forms ask for such pertinent information as claiming refugee status, their citizenship status, their family members, previous protection claims and visa applications. Is that correct as well? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: The basis of claim form is the narrative that describes the journey of each individual claimant so that it grabs not only the tombstone data of information, like family members, etc., but also, literally, the facts on which the claim is being based, so that when a member is looking at the case, that forms a part of the record. Mr. Larry Maguire: I would certainly agree. I think that most of the other information is vitally important to the IRBC to determine if the claim is valid. Would you agree with that? All of that information is gathered for that reason, is it not? Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: Yes. It's not the only thing that is looked at by a member, but it certainly is one of the very important pieces of evidence that is looked at because it is a combination of fact and law that will influence the adjudication. Mr. Larry Maguire: It's come to my attention I'm kind of concerned I've heard others that the refugee claimants filing the claims in Quebec are no longer required to provide one bit of information on some specific questions as to why they are even claiming refugee status and in which country they hold citizenship. According to the website, due to the challenges of making sure the basic basis of claim form is done in time as set out in the legislation, the IRB deleted the questions in order for the form to be completed, to be considered complete. Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller: No. Please, Mr. Chair, if I may, I would just like to correct that impression for the record. The practice notice you're referring to, which is on our website, is in direct response to the fact that the community of consultants and counsel in the eastern region came to us and explained that the time frames that are required for the submission of the basis of claim were completely impossible for them to meet because the demand for their services was so incredibly high. As a result of that, in keeping with the legislation, we were able to require that claimants actually submit what is the skeleton of the basis of claim form as a holding place for the file. This is the tombstone data that somebody can fill out without access to counsel and without a profound understanding of the actual system. Then, before the hearing, we require a full basis of claim to be submitted with all of the elements filled out in order for the claim to proceed. None of the substance of that basis of claim form is being given up at all. It is required. That practice notice basically allows for a two-step process to submit that claim. Remember that the IRB is focused on equal access to justice, and the principles of natural justice do include, primarily, the right to be heard and the right to make a full case.